ericsp BRAKIE I talked to Leon again last night at length and his words-I didn't include the expletives he used: Those are indeed "collision bars" mandated by the FRA.If'n they work-chuckle-there's a lot of weight being toss about in a wreck and we have seen on the news tank car explosions and leaks after a wreck..You could calls 'em safety bars,anti personnel bars,monkey bars,candy bars,side rods or any thing you wish but,the hard fact remains they are collision bars.I ain't never heard the things called by any other name in the 34 years I spent repairing/rebuilding tank cars... Why would the FRA mandate collision bars on cars carrying non-dangerous liquids but not on cars carrying LPG? The bold has been added my me. UTLX's literature refers to them as "side safety bars."http://www.utlx.com/pdf/anatomy_lpg.pdf
BRAKIE I talked to Leon again last night at length and his words-I didn't include the expletives he used: Those are indeed "collision bars" mandated by the FRA.If'n they work-chuckle-there's a lot of weight being toss about in a wreck and we have seen on the news tank car explosions and leaks after a wreck..You could calls 'em safety bars,anti personnel bars,monkey bars,candy bars,side rods or any thing you wish but,the hard fact remains they are collision bars.I ain't never heard the things called by any other name in the 34 years I spent repairing/rebuilding tank cars...
I talked to Leon again last night at length and his words-I didn't include the expletives he used:
Those are indeed "collision bars" mandated by the FRA.If'n they work-chuckle-there's a lot of weight being toss about in a wreck and we have seen on the news tank car explosions and leaks after a wreck..You could calls 'em safety bars,anti personnel bars,monkey bars,candy bars,side rods or any thing you wish but,the hard fact remains they are collision bars.I ain't never heard the things called by any other name in the 34 years I spent repairing/rebuilding tank cars...
Why would the FRA mandate collision bars on cars carrying non-dangerous liquids but not on cars carrying LPG?
The bold has been added my me. UTLX's literature refers to them as "side safety bars."http://www.utlx.com/pdf/anatomy_lpg.pdf
If you notice all tank cars today has those"collision bars" .
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIEericsp BRAKIE I talked to Leon again last night at length and his words-I didn't include the expletives he used: Those are indeed "collision bars" mandated by the FRA.If'n they work-chuckle-there's a lot of weight being toss about in a wreck and we have seen on the news tank car explosions and leaks after a wreck..You could calls 'em safety bars,anti personnel bars,monkey bars,candy bars,side rods or any thing you wish but,the hard fact remains they are collision bars.I ain't never heard the things called by any other name in the 34 years I spent repairing/rebuilding tank cars... Why would the FRA mandate collision bars on cars carrying non-dangerous liquids but not on cars carrying LPG? The bold has been added my me. UTLX's literature refers to them as "side safety bars."http://www.utlx.com/pdf/anatomy_lpg.pdf If you notice all tank cars today has those"collision bars" .
Well, if Union calls them "side safety bars" and the Railway Safety Appliance Standards document (to which I provided a link on page two) refers to them as a "side safety railing" and groups their required specifications with the "end safety railings", all of this within a document covering safety appliances for the protection of railway employees (not railway equipment or shippers' cargo, or the general public), then I think that we should use the proper term when discussing them - with all due respect to Leon, his former employer chooses to call them safety railings: calling them collision bars doesn't make them so and only confuses the issue.
There are lots of shop-floor terms used in many industries that aren't the "official" terms and lots of misconceptions caused by such misnomers, both among employees and the general public. I want to hear the official version, and will pester Procor until until I get it. I will post my findings here (I've requested info which I can cite, so hopefully something with someone's name attached to it), even if they turn out to be "collision bars" and for the protection of the tank rather than the worker.
You'd think, though, that we'd have a 1 1/4" pipe mounted alongside our highways, as a guardrail certainly appears to be over-kill.
Wayne
doctorwayne [There are lots of shop-floor terms used in many industries that aren't the "official" terms and lots of misconceptions caused by such misnomers, both among employees and the general public. I want to hear the official version, and will pester Procor until until I get it. I will post my findings here (I've requested info which I can cite, so hopefully something with someone's name attached to it), even if they turn out to be "collision bars" and for the protection of the tank rather than the worker. Wayne
[There are lots of shop-floor terms used in many industries that aren't the "official" terms and lots of misconceptions caused by such misnomers, both among employees and the general public. I want to hear the official version, and will pester Procor until until I get it. I will post my findings here (I've requested info which I can cite, so hopefully something with someone's name attached to it), even if they turn out to be "collision bars" and for the protection of the tank rather than the worker.
Then there's the names that railfans and modellers give things...
No-one seems to be considering the possibility that different people are calling the same thing by different names. The different names can be official or unofficial. Neither is supposed to happen these days - with the intention of avoiding confusion and thereby reducing risk.
That said... Procor appears to be the Canadian subsiduary (from what's been posted) so there is a possibility that they may use a different term from their neighbours south of the border.
Similarly there is a chance that the usage Brakie's friend was familiar with was contemporary, workshop official or any combination. Although not explicit the side bars at least may have been called "anti collision" or just "collision" as an abbreviation of "anti-personnel collision". This is 100% conjecture
As to some cars having bars along the sides and others not I would suggest two things.
1. Cars that do not have bars are (as far as I've seen) "fat" cars on which there is no place for a side bar to stand off from the side without going out of the loading gauge. If the bars are anti collision damage/protective they would have to stand away from the side to work.
2. Fat cars also fill the loading gauge between trucks so (I would reckon) that there is much less chance of personnel getting into the danger zone between trucks.
As far as collision protection strength goes...
How much protection would thin tube/bar supported on slim brackets provide? I would think that they might give a little protection against a sideswipe but a head on would just bend them in or, if it managed to hit a bracket, present a risk of puncturing the tank with the bracket. I've not seen a US example but seriously nasty load tank cars get protection with armco or similar in other parts of the world... these are more often road tankers.
Next thing about this... The general principle is that you're not supposed to crash into the things or crash them... they are supposed to be operated with care. Obvious yes... So then we go to the issue of the level of risk. If the risk of impact were considered high there would be far more protection and it would be seen on all tank cars with no exceptions.
A tank car is a tube... therefore,like a modern aircraft fuselage, it has a natural strength. This "probably" accounts for tank cars not having more protection from damage. All the protective bits mentioned in the discussion so far are bits that stick out from the tankcar body... and are therefore at risk of being either knocked off or driven in... so they require additional protection.
I hope this helps.
Dave-the-train wrote:
--------------------------------------
Come to think of it you are more then likely correct.Railfans uses terms like Phase 1,2,3 etc to the locomotives builders,railroads and railroad shop workers there is no such thing.I have heard shop crews call number boards "bug boards" and "number boxes".Modelers call a switch a turn out..Railroaders calls 'em a switch.A turnout can be the protective clothing(gear) a firefighter wears as well..
You're right, Larry, and I think that's what's causing the confusion, as I've been trying to point out. You would think that both the manufacturers, in this case Union Tank and its Canadian subsidiary Procor, would use the same "official" term for the appliances in question. The document to which I linked on page two uses a similar term, and while I can't locate the site again, it was mentioned elsewhere that both U.S. and Canadian regulatory bodies use the same terms and language, as these cars move continent-wide. I assume, too, that Mexico would also be included in this.
The problem arises when someone, for convenience, shortens or alters the original term which appears on the engineering drawings, then that term becomes the one used by the general public (in this case, railfans). If the "new" term is far-enough removed from the original, it's easy to see how its intended use could be misinterpreted. I don't doubt for a minute that Leon knows them as "collision bars", but I think that the term is a misnomer and that its useage, particularly by railfans, conveys a meaning far removed from the true purpose of the feature under discussion.
Look at my second reply on the first page. None of those LPG cars have them.
Here is a UTLX car carrying LPG that does not have those bars.http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=55374
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
Wow, 34 replies to a simple question, who woulda' thunket, LOL! While I'm still not 100% certain what that thing is called, I've sure been entertained by the spirited dialogue. Thanx again gents, for making it interesting.
I'm not completely done with this project, but here's a before-and-after pair of images. I still need to print and apply the GATX decals, and install the underbody piping. But I'm happy to just get rid of those side walkways and have those personnel-anti-safety-bar-thinghamahoozits in their place.
Before:
...and AFTER:
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)
Nice job, Ken, and a big improvement over the original.
Doc - thanx for the kind words!
John - your cars look awesome. I'll have to try to find a copy of the Oct 1985 RMC and read that article, in the meantime I have to re-decal my 4 tankers for GATX and try to find some Staley logos for one of them, and make the letters look like they're rusted off (as in the proto-photo on rrpicturearchives.net).
Just a brief update. While I haven't had a reply to my e-mail from Procor, I did contact them by 'phone and was assured that they'd have some information for me soon.
I have received a very courteous and helpful reply from PROCOR, along with a drawing which I am unable to include. Below is a statement by Keith MacCauley, Chief Fleet Engineer for PROCOR:
As shown on the attached GA (General Arrangement) drawing, the device you are referring to is known as a 'SIDE SAFETY RAIL'. My understanding is that its principle function is to prevent personnel from being in the path of the wheels, etc. Certainly it is not of sufficient structural strength to prevent damage to the tank in the event of a collision.The labeled drawing leaves no doubt as to the device referred to. Now we all know the correct term to use and its true purpose. And, by the way, Larry, no disrespect intended towards Leon.
Wayne,I also ask one of the guys at the N Scale club that works at Union tank and without hesitation he side its a side collision bar.
Could this be a local shop term for the same thing as PROCORS 'SIDE SAFETY RAIL'?
That is a solid rod and at low impact from a 4 wheel vehicle at a street crossing it should protect the tank..
We all agree anybody standing that close to a moving tank car would need to be standing on the rail to get run over by the wheels..We also agreed it would stop a skate boarder from skating into the moving tank car.
Kinda like the bar you see on the bottom of a trailer below the doors.
Is it a ICC bar or dock lock bar?
That depends on who you ask.
Its one and the same.
doctorwayneI have received a very courteous and helpful reply from PROCOR, along with a drawing which I am unable to include. Below is a statement by Keith MacCauley, Chief Fleet Engineer for PROCOR: As shown on the attached GA (General Arrangement) drawing, the device you are referring to is known as a 'SIDE SAFETY RAIL'. My understanding is that its principle function is to prevent personnel from being in the path of the wheels, etc. Certainly it is not of sufficient structural strength to prevent damage to the tank in the event of a collision.The labeled drawing leaves no doubt as to the device referred to. Now we all know the correct term to use and its true purpose.
As shown on the attached GA (General Arrangement) drawing, the device you are referring to is known as a 'SIDE SAFETY RAIL'. My understanding is that its principle function is to prevent personnel from being in the path of the wheels, etc. Certainly it is not of sufficient structural strength to prevent damage to the tank in the event of a collision.The labeled drawing leaves no doubt as to the device referred to. Now we all know the correct term to use and its true purpose.
Larry, I'm sure that it's a shop term for the same device, but it's one that imparts a meaning to the purpose of the device that is something other than its intended purpose, hence all of the foregoing discussion. It is clearly labelled on the drawing as a Side Safety Rail, and also referred to as such in the Safety Standards document to which I earlier provided a link. In that document, the construction of the device is also clearly spelled out as 1.25" steel or iron pipe, hardly capable, as noted in the highlighted part of the quote, of providing protection against vehicular impact.
As for as the possibility of personnel being struck: on tight curves, such as might be found where switching maneuvers would take place, it would be quite possible for a ground worker to be within the loading gauge on the inside of the curve, and therefore within the path of the stub frames if it were not for the presence of the Side Safety Rail. He wouldn't necessarily need to be standing on the rail.
Please refer to 49CFR Part 231.9 (Tank cars without end sills). Side safety rails are included under the umbrella of 'Saftey Appliances' as prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations. Constructed of 1-1/4" pipe (hollow) with 3/8" x 2" widely spaced support brackets they would offer little in the way of crash protection against an incoming vehicle.